Irreducible complication

From: http://constitution.com/vertigo-proof-d ... evolution/

If you follow the evolutionary theory of how mankind evolved, consider that at some stage of evolution, a creature had to be the first to be able to stand up and move around. That means that all three semicircular canals had to have suddenly evolved in BOTH inner ears in order for that creature to have stood upright. What are the odds of that happening by random chance? ZERO.

First, you have to have the genes in the DNA to code for the development of the semicircular canals. Then you need all of the complex molecules, proteins and elements present in order to form the semicircular canals. Then consider the fact that the three semicircular canals in each inner ear had to be perfectly aligned in order to maintain an upright sense of balance.

Of course, many don't want evidence that contradicts them. Safe spaces are becoming popular

I know that I'm wasting my time replying as you can't counter faith with logic and facts.
Look at any wildlife video of primates. Chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and the rest. They walk on all fours, semi upright, and fully upright at times. No sudden Adam and Eve miracle, just in the open savannah those who walked upright more often (which helped to see predators) lived longer to have more children. Please don't come back saying that I said we evolved from these, as we didn't.

DDHv wrote:From: http://constitution.com/vertigo-proof-d ... evolution/

If you follow the evolutionary theory of how mankind evolved, consider that at some stage of evolution, a creature had to be the first to be able to stand up and move around. That means that all three semicircular canals had to have suddenly evolved in BOTH inner ears in order for that creature to have stood upright. What are the odds of that happening by random chance? ZERO.

First, you have to have the genes in the DNA to code for the development of the semicircular canals. Then you need all of the complex molecules, proteins and elements present in order to form the semicircular canals. Then consider the fact that the three semicircular canals in each inner ear had to be perfectly aligned in order to maintain an upright sense of balance.

Of course, many don't want evidence that contradicts them. Safe spaces are becoming popular

Question, DDHv, are you a creationist or making fun of them? Because it's kinda hard to tell.


I mean, the idiot who wrote this (I don't care what his other qualifications are, his article is proof positive of terminal idiocy) doesn't understand evolution. It is astonishing to me that he chose the inner ear as his battleground, as his one proof that there must have been a god who designed it all; the usual proof trotted out in this is after all the eye. Then again, it is possible that while this guy studied for his Master's degree in Biology he has come across the various intermediary forms animal eyes took between the first photosensitive elements in single cell organisms and what mammals use today. Why he thinks similar mechanisms didn't apply to the inner ear is quite beyond me.

Oh, and DDHv? That article you linked to could only be written by someone so deep inside his own echo chamber (or safe space, if you will) that he doesn't feel the need to provide proof because everyone will automatically agree with him.

One million years ago, humans did not exist.

None of the 'creationism' variants even attempt to explain how we can exist now, but not a million years ago.
--------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

Sure they do: "Act Of G-d!"

That is what "Creationism" is all about.
Duh.
Then they will tell you that "one million years ago" didn't exist.

Naughty Moose

Imaginos1892 wrote:One million years ago, humans did not exist.

None of the 'creationism' variants even attempt to explain how we can exist now, but not a million years ago.
--------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

DDHv wrote:From: http://constitution.com/vertigo-proof-d ... evolution/

If you follow the evolutionary theory of how mankind evolved, consider that at some stage of evolution, a creature had to be the first to be able to stand up and move around. That means that all three semicircular canals had to have suddenly evolved in BOTH inner ears in order for that creature to have stood upright. What are the odds of that happening by random chance? ZERO.

First, you have to have the genes in the DNA to code for the development of the semicircular canals. Then you need all of the complex molecules, proteins and elements present in order to form the semicircular canals. Then consider the fact that the three semicircular canals in each inner ear had to be perfectly aligned in order to maintain an upright sense of balance.

Of course, many don't want evidence that contradicts them. Safe spaces are becoming popular

Two points. First, the person that wrote the quote does not appear to understand how evolution works. Adaptive changes do not "suddenly" happen by "random chance", they are the result of millennia of incremental variations, with advantageous traits giving a better chance of survival, and thus passing on the trait to the next generation. Many other variations that occur do not carry a survival advantage, and die out.

Second, if you read the full article you find that his conclusion is based not on scientific research, but on a bout of vertigo he had, and his own inability to imagine any intermediate stages between crawling creatures and ones that walk upright. Like a lot of Xtian apologists, his argument comes down to "I don't understand how it happened, so it must have been god". He claims a Masters degree in Biology but does not mention that it was received from The Institute For Creation Research, whose web page states:

"For over four decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework."

Sounds to me like they have no need of research, they've already made up their minds. I might also mention that, aside from a glass-etching business, the author's "About" page at CreationRevolution.com cites only experience in organizations pushing creationism. No actual scientific career.

Of course, many don't want evidence that contradicts them. Safe spaces are becoming popular

Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!

And not all such conservatives are GOP Senators but they are trying to corner the market...
"My mind is made up, please don't confuse me with the facts!"

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Sure they do: "Act Of G-d!"

That is what "Creationism" is all about.
Duh.
Then they will tell you that "one million years ago" didn't exist.

Naughty Moose

Imaginos1892 wrote:One million years ago, humans did not exist.

None of the 'creationism' variants even attempt to explain how we can exist now, but not a million years ago.
--------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

Not one of these replies gives any discussion about how something that only works at all if it is completely in existence could possibly happen in incremental stages, each of which is an improvement on the earlier one. If evolution is real, it MUST have been in such small stages.

This is the logical fallacy known as "begging the question."


Rhetoric is not evidence. I've read many articles and books by evolutionary writers. Have you studied any by William Dembski, Michael Behe, or any other author who discusses irreducible complication? If so, please provide a link to any one which provides solid evidence for the incremental stages needed, and not just rhetoric


From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

Bacterial flagella are helical filaments, each with a rotary motor at its base which can turn clockwise or counterclockwise.[8][9][10] They provide two of several kinds of bacterial motility.

The eye also requires a control system to the actuators before it can be useful and therefore be selectable. These aren't the only things that are irreducible


With our present knowledge of genetics, mutation rates, etc. it is possible to roughly calculate the odds of several independent mutations at the same time. Should we accept any theory when calculation using our current knowledge gives odds of over 10^9:1 against it

dscott8 wrote:
snip

He claims a Masters degree in Biology but does not mention that it was received from The Institute For Creation Research, whose web page states:

"For over four decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework."

Sounds to me like they have no need of research, they've already made up their minds.

snip

Are you certain you aren't talking about evolutionists?

Some assumption is needed before you can test any idea. Research is how ideas are tested against reality. It is the validity of the test that counts, not its source, since even a jerk gets something right once in a while. If accepted authorities were always correct, knowledge could never advance


PS: I think each of us should make a point of reading the thread: "The Incompleteness of Godwin's Law" every once in a while just to help us recognize the difference between gratuitous and pertinent

DDHv wrote:Not one of these replies gives any discussion about how something that only works at all if it is completely in existence could possibly happen in incremental stages, each of which is an improvement on the earlier one. If evolution is real, it MUST have been in such small stages.

This is the logical fallacy known as "begging the question."

The entire article you cite has as its only proof one man's belief. There is nothing in there that shows the author has done any research whatsoever.

As I mentioned above, the traditional argument for creationism in this regard is the mammalian eye. It too is far too perfect to have sprung up out of nowhere, so its existance is definitive proof of an intelligent creator somewhere, right?

Wrong. Because this ignores the various intermediary stages we know exist.

Here's an article on why the concept of irreducible complexity is bullshit, which I invite you to read and ignore because it's not conforming to your beliefs.

Rhetoric is not evidence. I've read many articles and books by evolutionary writers. Have you studied any by William Dembski, Michael Behe, or any other author who discusses irreducible complication? If so, please provide a link to any one which provides solid evidence for the incremental stages needed, and not just rhetoric

Michael Behe? Who was once on a witness stand defending intelligent design? Who had to admit that no ID research paper has been properly peer-reviewed, that he lied about his own publications being peer-reviewed, who admitted that the acceptance of ID is largely dependant on belief in god, who had to expand the definition of "scientific theory" so far as to allow the inclusion of astrology into it in order to fit ID in, and who, just like you, ignored scientific evidence as "not good enough" because it didn't fit his worldview?

That one?

Then we come to William Dembski. Who isn't even a biologist, yet feels qualified to write about biology from a purely philosophical standpoint without examining the body of knowledge of that science. Why should we listen to him, or read his treatises again? Because he agrees with you?

If rhetoric is not evidence, why should we treat Dembski's rhetoric as such?

The eye also requires a control system to the actuators before it can be useful and therefore be selectable. These aren't the only things that are irreducible

Owls disagree with you.

With our present knowledge of genetics, mutation rates, etc. it is possible to roughly calculate the odds of several independent mutations at the same time. Should we accept any theory when calculation using our current knowledge gives odds of over 10^9:1 against it

Again, you do not understand how evolution works.

Some assumption is needed before you can test any idea. Research is how ideas are tested against reality. It is the validity of the test that counts, not its source, since even a jerk gets something right once in a while. If accepted authorities were always correct, knowledge could never advance

Then explain why Intelligent Design has not yielded a single proof. Explain why it has never been peer reviewed, why its proponents have not shown a single piece of experimental or archeological proof (unlike the theory of evolution, which has been proven experimentally).

By your own standards, ID is unproven. Why doesn't that bother you?

Here is what I think on this subject... I can believe but not prove (to 100% satisfaction of 100% of the people) what I believe. This is exactly what we learn in Hebrews 11 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
Because of my understanding of this I believe that it is unproductive to pass judgement on people that don't think exactly as I do.
I cannot have the confidence to condemn people that think or look different that I...
After all, I could be wrong and so could you but if history teaches us anything it is that some people, by accident of birth, were all too willing to send armies to burn out the heretics only to be proven wrong by the passage of time.
It is like the example of four blind men trying to describe an elephant when they only touch one part of it.
Truth is too big to be held in the mind of man. “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love." I Corinthians 2:9 or "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Mark 10:25 a verse that is too quickly explained away by the pray your way to riches crowd that seem to be the core of the religious right.

Rather than trying to convert everyone/anyone who may disagree with your deep conviction... "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:5
Practice tolerance and learn patients... I agree with what Maikel Staynair told Merlin in Schism that I will rather live life as if God is real and treat my brother man as if I will stand before a judgement... did I feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned or did look down my nose and condemn any who had the recklessness to disagree with my understanding?

My mother tried to teach me some important lessons which I took too long to learn... "don't burn my bridges", "if I cannot find something nice to say, don't say anything" and "don't argue politics and religion in polite company" The last is because both political and religious opinion rest on "things not seen" as much as on how we feel.
Sorry mom.